We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?
Exactly.
If reports are to be believed, Jobs has been one of the most hands-on CEOs of a major corporation ever. He is said to have everything running through him from button placement on every gadget to what music plays on the commercials. Heck, he even reads and responds to his email from the public!
It is possible that he is simply stepping back his involvement to a more normal executive oversight level.
It is hard to believe he could do that, but it is possible...
In recent months, he has looked increasingly frail, according to people who have seen him.
Dr. Lewis W. Teperman, the director of transplant surgery and vice chairman of surgery at the Langone Medical Center of New York University, said a variety of problems could affect someone with a liver transplant. Dr. Teperman has not been involved in Mr. Jobs?s care and said he had no knowledge of the case.
?It?s very common for transplant patients to have issues that are not life-threatening,? Dr. Teperman said. ?We give them very strong, high-powered medications, immunosuppressants, to prevent rejection. It?s a delicate balance, more art than science.?
Side effects from the drugs can make patients ill, and sometimes the regimen has to be changed, a process that can take days and weeks. The side-effects include high blood sugar and diabetes, kidney damage, diarrhea, high blood pressure, high blood fats and cholesterol, rashes and low counts of white blood cells. The drugs leave patients prone to infection.
Rejection of the transplanted liver is also a possibility, but Dr. Teperman said it was extremely rare for a liver transplant to be totally rejected.
The original reason for Mr. Jobs?s transplant was never publicly disclosed. At the time, doctors not involved in his case said the most likely reason was that his pancreatic cancer had spread to his liver. If that was the case, it is possible that cancer has recurred; the anti-rejection drugs can increase the odds of cancer recurrence. A recurrence may be treatable. But so little information has been disclosed that it is impossible to tell, Dr. Teperman said.
It is high time that Steve Jobs retires for medical reasons. The New York Times article quoted above highlights 2 obvious reasons for concern:
1- A recurrence of cancer which is favored by anti-rejection drugs;
2- Infections brought about by anti-rejection drugs and/or the need to adjust their selection, combination or dosage.
We should all be thankful for the immense contribution Steve Jobs has made at Apple, but now is the time to retire so that a real succession plan can take place.
No, Steve Jobs is not eternal. Investors should take notice and cash in their profits while they exist. Hedge funds are sure to leave the Apple ship and leave it in a worst shape than before they invested in it for the unmatched "double digit returns".
From now on, shareholders, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the NASDQ authorities will decide whether Steve Jobs can stay on, pretend that he is still the Apple CEO, and refuse to discuss the health problems that force him to take an indefinite medical leave of absence.
Really, only fools would fail to understand what is happening.
If reports are to be believed, Jobs has been one of the most hands-on CEOs of a major corporation ever. He is said to have everything running through him from button placement on every gadget to what music plays on the commercials. Heck, he even reads and responds to his email from the public!
It is possible that he is simply stepping back his involvement to a more normal executive oversight level.
It is hard to believe he could do that, but it is possible...
I somehow imagine that he would relinquish the 'normal executive' duties before giving up the hands on product and design decisions. He has people who can do most of the executive stuff but nixing a button? Jonny Ive is his sparring partner I am sure, but in the end, having a say in developing cool new products and features, and nixing buttons is what its all about.
Really, only fools would fail to understand what is happening.
Speak for yourself, mate. Your view will always be biased due to your declared dislike and mistrust of the man, but really, until I actually know anything more than that everybody is speculating I guess I'll remain a fool.
I somehow imagine that he would relinquish the 'normal executive' duties before giving up the hands on product and design decisions. He has people who can do most of the executive stuff but nixing a button? Jonny Ive is his sparring partner I am sure, but in the end, having a say in developing cool new products and features, and nixing buttons is what its all about.
I agree 100% I listed a range from the important (button sparring with Ive) to the less important (commercial music and emailing the public). One would hope that he would continue to be involved in the important (if he is to remain CEO) while giving up on the rest.
Nevertheless, I suppose Jobs has thought that all of his duties are "what it is all about" because he does seem to relish his work!
We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?
I think we actually have a pretty good idea, from his past history. Steve was never a "hands off" type of manager. He gets himself deeply into the details. Very little happens at Apple that doesn't have Steve's personal green light. That's what we've heard for years now, so I think we do know in general what attending to his duties means. I don't see how he manages this by remote control, especially if he's spending a lot of time with doctors.
Please, let's not try to ignore the fact that the board is very unlikely to tell Steve to step down in favor of Cook, even if perhaps they should. I think it may well be time to make the transition official, but I don't see Steve letting go until he simply can't hang on any longer. So who thinks this is good for Apple? Not many, I'll bet.
Speak for yourself, mate. Your view will always be biased due to your declared dislike and mistrust of the man, but really, until I actually know anything more than that everybody is speculating I guess I'll remain a fool.
I am surprised that he didn't mention that Jobs is a college dropout as he has in so many other posts.
Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures. I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.
One posted link to a news article?
Not my cup of tea, non of my scientific publications I peruse in would accept such, but since you have, consider the following.
In your single citation:
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed, Mr. Jobs's minimal disclosure is again is stirring controversy. His vague statement to Apple employees "leaves a lot to the imagination ? and that was the problem the last time,'' said Charles Elson, head of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware's business school. "It does leave a lot for investors to worry about.''
Mr. Elson, a corporate-governance expert and member of HealthSouth Corp.'s board, suggested that Apple directors divulge greater details about their ailing leader's medical condition. "They need to be as specific with investors as he [Mr. Jobs] has been with them about the nature of his health difficulties and when he may come back,'' Mr. Elson said.
Mr. Elson argued shareholders' right to know overrides a public company chief executive's preference for privacy. "When you become a CEO, your privacy becomes muted a bit,'' he added.
But a year and a half earlier, the same man:
Quote:
Some corporate governance experts said that because Jobs is on a temporary medical leave, Apple does not have material disclosure obligations until he returns.
"There doesn't need to be any disclosure until they bring him back," said Charles Elson, chair of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. "Then they have to disclose it when he returns."
In addition, i don't see any succession planning in any of the boards that Elson is on. And at what point, and who makes it, that dictates that a CEO is ailing enough to disclose his/her health status? However, I do see that Mr. Elson has addressed that in part.
Ok wtf should he disclose then anyway? Do you want daily announcements by his physicians? Weekly? Bi-weekly? Do you want blood exams, urine exams, mris? Do you want them mailed to you or posted online?
And do you maybe want to have your doctors examine him too? Which doctors opinion on SJ's would you consider reliable?
This whole discussion is ridiculous and nonsensical. A medical leave of absence is just that. End of story. We know about Steve's cancer in the past, an his liver transplant, the rest is for his family, close friends and doctors to know.
I know I'm not gonna get anywhere with you, but 1) it's not for HIM to disclose, it's for Apple, Inc., again, a publicly held corporation with millions of people having more or less of their prosperity depending on how Apple does, to keep us apprised of what THEY as an organization know about the overall state of their leadership team.
Again, as Dr. Milmoss points out you and others are simply making up what the real issue is here which is not second-by-second access to every medical detail of the man's life. In debate terms, you're dragging a "red herring" across the stage to distract from the real issue or building a "straw man" which you can knock down and look like you've made a point.
2) That the rest of the team is intact and doing fine is good news, but everyone in the world knows who's responsible for bringing Apple Computer from the brink of irrelevance to the hottest business organization in the world. Thus no one expects a press release that a junior engineer in the iPad division is out on maternity leave or that another employee at that level has been fired or hired.
But no other major company in the world is so currently tied to the actions and ideas of a single person as Apple is to Steve Jobs.
3) And if Apple actually knows nothing more that what it released, which seems absurd on its face, but if that's the case, then people who are a) owners, b) suppliers/dealers/partners and c) customers need to know that as well so we can make our own decisions about our a) Apple stock, b) contracts and c) product-buying plans accordingly.
4) This of course doesn't imply breathless daily press releases of every detail of his condition - which is confidential unless released by the patient or those personally acting on a patient's behalf when they cannot do so, but it does include Apple's (not Steve's) understanding of what the statement that Jobs "will be involved in "major strategic decisions" means (and how capable he is of fulfilling that role) and some estimate of when their CEO might be back and their confidence level that he will.
5) And this is not just my opinion in any way. As noted elsewhere there are SEC regulations and likely other legal or policy matters which apply here. I'm certain there's a whole body of developing precedent.
6) There will be a post Steve Jobs period to Apple's life as an organization. His successor will not be his clone (and e.g., just for one fact, will not be largest shareholder and a board member at Walt Disney, which has guaranteed strong Hollywood support for the company). The post SPJ exec. will constantly be facing new challenges as they arise from competitors, co-opetitioners, suppliers and within - and will be changing or seeking to change the team and strategic directions - in an atmosphere where that new exec. will be far more closely scrutinized than nearly any other, given the shoes he or she will be filling.
?The company has a responsibility to let public shareholders know that the organizational structure will be sound if Steve Jobs has to leave for any reason,? said Apple investor Ryan Jacob, head of the Jacob Internet Fund. Apple is the fund?s third-largest holding, accounting for 5.9 percent of its investments as of Dec. 31. The amount of disclosure about what?s going on has been ?poor at best,? he said.
?In the investor?s mind, Steve Jobs is the linchpin to this company?s future and there are unanswered questions,? said Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware?s John Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. ?His health is not an isolated issue. Unfortunately, it directly relates to investors? confidence in this business and there has not been enough transparency from the board.?
"From a legal standpoint, Apple doesn't have to disclose a thing. But from a transparency standpoint, they should disclose," said Delaware's Elson, from the University of Delaware. Even though Jobs' health may be his personal business, he represents so much of the Apple brand that investors deserve to be updated, Elson said.
?We don?t know much,? said Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. ?We know he is back at work and that he had a transplant. Given how important he seems to be to the value of this business, we ought to have the facts in front us that the board had in bringing him back.? During his absence, Apple said little about Mr. Jobs other than repeating that he would be back at the end of June. Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, said Apple?s insistence on secrecy damaged the company?s credibility.
?At every stage, the rumor mill was more informative and accurate than the company?s external communications,? Mr. Sonnenfeld said. ?The fact that they?ve gotten away with it sets a very low bar.?
This is probably the transition where Jobs will be leaving permanently. Good health to him and may he return as soon as possible if this is not a transition move.
My heart dropped when I heard this. I think this may very well be Steve's last act. He gave it all he could, and he gave the world remarkable technologies to make our lives more enjoyable and fulfilling. I just can't help but come to terms that Steve's last days may be upon us. This leave may be his final pilgrimage to fulfill life's last desires. I hope that he finds peace in this frightening time and know that he is loved more than feared. Since 1992 I have been a die hard Apple nut, and Steve saved my favorite company. I hope he leaves behind a blueprint for Apple to follow for the next 50 years. Find peace, Steve!
My heart dropped when I heard this. I think this may very well be Steve's last act. He gave it all he could, and he gave the world remarkable technologies to make our lives more enjoyable and fulfilling. I just can't help but come to terms that Steve's last days may be upon us. This leave may be his final pilgrimage to fulfill life's last desires. I hope that he finds peace in this frightening time and know that he is loved more than feared. Since 1992 I have been a die hard Apple nut, and Steve saved my favorite company. I hope he leaves behind a blueprint for Apple to follow for the next 50 years. Find peace, Steve!
This may happen as you say, but more likely, we will see steves in and out of his company in the next couple of years. As much as I would like steve to continue at full power as soon as possible, as much I wish for him to have a long life ahead. Both ideas are in his situation incompatible. But he pulled the wagon out of the deep swamp and that almost single handedly back at the end of the ninties. Now he has gathered a extraordinary capable crew around himself, so that I beliefe he can really relax during his leave. This situation actually may really help him, since being able to let go releaves from stress, and reduced stress improves the overall prognosis of almost any kind of desease but particularly from cancer, if he truly is still suffering from his pancreatic cancer.
Apple needs to delegate Steve Jobs?s power more formally to someone else. Mr. Jobs, Apple?s chief executive, is handing day-to-day control to the company?s chief operating officer, Tim Cook, because of health issues. Yet he retains his chief executive title. This is the third such move, and this time the handover is indefinite. However painful, a more formal transfer to an acting chief executive would have been better.
Both Apple and its shareholders can take comfort in the fact that the last two transfers, also to Mr. Cook, took place smoothly. Apple?s operations showed no signs whatsoever of impairment under caretaker management.
Mr. Cook has worked at Apple for more than a decade and has been chief operating officer for several years. He?s clearly a safe pair of hands and more ? in total, he was paid $59 million last year. Moreover, Mr. Jobs has promised to retain control over big strategic choices.
But Mr. Jobs?s fitness is, sadly, an increasing concern. The company hasn?t said exactly what the current matter is, but this latest setback follows previous treatment for pancreatic cancer and an organ transplant. Furthermore, the open-ended nature of Mr. Jobs?s current respite will add to the worry for employees and investors alike.
In these circumstances, Apple would have been better served by explicitly naming Mr. Cook acting chief. That would leave Mr. Jobs as chairman, where he could retain say over the Apple?s strategic direction without the grueling daily chores of running the company.
That is where he is most valuable anyhow. Such a division would provide clarity and give Mr. Cook a proper mandate, given the responsibility of overseeing a company with a $300 billion market capitalization.
Mr. Jobs plays an outsize role at Apple. He is arguably the best executive in technology. But his reputation also depends on keeping the company on the soundest footing possible, even if that means formally loosening his grip.
In these circumstances, Apple would have been better served by explicitly naming Mr. Cook acting chief. That would leave Mr. Jobs as chairman, where he could retain say over the Apple?s strategic direction without the grueling daily chores of running the company.
I expect this to announced about 6 months after his return from this LOA. When you add in the rumors that Apple is searching for a CFO (even though Oppenheimer says he is happy at Apple), I think you can see that there is an effort to adjust the management team. It appears that Oppenheimer will be slotted into the COO spot upon Cook's elevation to CEO. I have some concerns about moving a finance guy into running operations but I am sure they feel he will be the best "cultural" fit. Steve will assume the role of a very active board chairman - working out the big strategic moves and keeping careful watch that the "Apple DNA" continues to inform future product decisions.
From my perspective, Apple has been laying the groundwork for this transition for the past two years. Steve has included more presenters at Apple events not only to help them improve their presentation abilities but also for the media and others to get used to announcements coming from someone other than Jobs. Press releases that once quoted only Jobs now frequently include quotes from Cook or other senior staff.
Comments
We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?
Exactly.
If reports are to be believed, Jobs has been one of the most hands-on CEOs of a major corporation ever. He is said to have everything running through him from button placement on every gadget to what music plays on the commercials. Heck, he even reads and responds to his email from the public!
It is possible that he is simply stepping back his involvement to a more normal executive oversight level.
It is hard to believe he could do that, but it is possible...
In recent months, he has looked increasingly frail, according to people who have seen him.
Dr. Lewis W. Teperman, the director of transplant surgery and vice chairman of surgery at the Langone Medical Center of New York University, said a variety of problems could affect someone with a liver transplant. Dr. Teperman has not been involved in Mr. Jobs?s care and said he had no knowledge of the case.
?It?s very common for transplant patients to have issues that are not life-threatening,? Dr. Teperman said. ?We give them very strong, high-powered medications, immunosuppressants, to prevent rejection. It?s a delicate balance, more art than science.?
Side effects from the drugs can make patients ill, and sometimes the regimen has to be changed, a process that can take days and weeks. The side-effects include high blood sugar and diabetes, kidney damage, diarrhea, high blood pressure, high blood fats and cholesterol, rashes and low counts of white blood cells. The drugs leave patients prone to infection.
Rejection of the transplanted liver is also a possibility, but Dr. Teperman said it was extremely rare for a liver transplant to be totally rejected.
The original reason for Mr. Jobs?s transplant was never publicly disclosed. At the time, doctors not involved in his case said the most likely reason was that his pancreatic cancer had spread to his liver. If that was the case, it is possible that cancer has recurred; the anti-rejection drugs can increase the odds of cancer recurrence. A recurrence may be treatable. But so little information has been disclosed that it is impossible to tell, Dr. Teperman said.
It is high time that Steve Jobs retires for medical reasons. The New York Times article quoted above highlights 2 obvious reasons for concern:
1- A recurrence of cancer which is favored by anti-rejection drugs;
2- Infections brought about by anti-rejection drugs and/or the need to adjust their selection, combination or dosage.
We should all be thankful for the immense contribution Steve Jobs has made at Apple, but now is the time to retire so that a real succession plan can take place.
No, Steve Jobs is not eternal. Investors should take notice and cash in their profits while they exist. Hedge funds are sure to leave the Apple ship and leave it in a worst shape than before they invested in it for the unmatched "double digit returns".
From now on, shareholders, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the NASDQ authorities will decide whether Steve Jobs can stay on, pretend that he is still the Apple CEO, and refuse to discuss the health problems that force him to take an indefinite medical leave of absence.
Really, only fools would fail to understand what is happening.
Exactly.
If reports are to be believed, Jobs has been one of the most hands-on CEOs of a major corporation ever. He is said to have everything running through him from button placement on every gadget to what music plays on the commercials. Heck, he even reads and responds to his email from the public!
It is possible that he is simply stepping back his involvement to a more normal executive oversight level.
It is hard to believe he could do that, but it is possible...
I somehow imagine that he would relinquish the 'normal executive' duties before giving up the hands on product and design decisions. He has people who can do most of the executive stuff but nixing a button? Jonny Ive is his sparring partner I am sure, but in the end, having a say in developing cool new products and features, and nixing buttons is what its all about.
No it isn't. Look at a market where it is still trading (e.g. Germany). Roughly -8.5%
Not a big panic yet, but given Apple's fundamentals, it is bound to be a temporary dip.
I suspect this has been planned in combination with the financials tomorrow. Those might soften the blow.
Here's an interesting report:
http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/App....html?x=0&.v=8
So all those former Apple employees were lying.
Guess the original Macintosh team and later hardware engineers don't know about their own working environment.
Links please -- or are you just spouting?
Really, only fools would fail to understand what is happening.
Speak for yourself, mate. Your view will always be biased due to your declared dislike and mistrust of the man, but really, until I actually know anything more than that everybody is speculating I guess I'll remain a fool.
I somehow imagine that he would relinquish the 'normal executive' duties before giving up the hands on product and design decisions. He has people who can do most of the executive stuff but nixing a button? Jonny Ive is his sparring partner I am sure, but in the end, having a say in developing cool new products and features, and nixing buttons is what its all about.
I agree 100% I listed a range from the important (button sparring with Ive) to the less important (commercial music and emailing the public). One would hope that he would continue to be involved in the important (if he is to remain CEO) while giving up on the rest.
Nevertheless, I suppose Jobs has thought that all of his duties are "what it is all about" because he does seem to relish his work!
We don't know what "attend to executive duties on a day-to-day basis" means either. For some CEOs it means playing golf with some other CEO. Steve never did stuff like that anyway. He has a phone and people who he trusts and depends on. He can delegate tasks. What do you want? Does he have to punch a time clock?
I think we actually have a pretty good idea, from his past history. Steve was never a "hands off" type of manager. He gets himself deeply into the details. Very little happens at Apple that doesn't have Steve's personal green light. That's what we've heard for years now, so I think we do know in general what attending to his duties means. I don't see how he manages this by remote control, especially if he's spending a lot of time with doctors.
Please, let's not try to ignore the fact that the board is very unlikely to tell Steve to step down in favor of Cook, even if perhaps they should. I think it may well be time to make the transition official, but I don't see Steve letting go until he simply can't hang on any longer. So who thinks this is good for Apple? Not many, I'll bet.
Speak for yourself, mate. Your view will always be biased due to your declared dislike and mistrust of the man, but really, until I actually know anything more than that everybody is speculating I guess I'll remain a fool.
I am surprised that he didn't mention that Jobs is a college dropout as he has in so many other posts.
There is a definite tone of sadness that I find disturbing. To me this note is saying goodbye.
Already done. Follow posted links. You could also read some of the multiple stories appearing today on this subject. Many of them include comments from corporate governance experts, and refer back to the previous history of disclosures. I have yet to hear from any of them that Apple has handled disclosure issues well in the past or that they're doing it any better now.
One posted link to a news article?
Not my cup of tea, non of my scientific publications I peruse in would accept such, but since you have, consider the following.
In your single citation:
Indeed, Mr. Jobs's minimal disclosure is again is stirring controversy. His vague statement to Apple employees "leaves a lot to the imagination ? and that was the problem the last time,'' said Charles Elson, head of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware's business school. "It does leave a lot for investors to worry about.''
Mr. Elson, a corporate-governance expert and member of HealthSouth Corp.'s board, suggested that Apple directors divulge greater details about their ailing leader's medical condition. "They need to be as specific with investors as he [Mr. Jobs] has been with them about the nature of his health difficulties and when he may come back,'' Mr. Elson said.
Mr. Elson argued shareholders' right to know overrides a public company chief executive's preference for privacy. "When you become a CEO, your privacy becomes muted a bit,'' he added.
But a year and a half earlier, the same man:In addition, i don't see any succession planning in any of the boards that Elson is on. And at what point, and who makes it, that dictates that a CEO is ailing enough to disclose his/her health status? However, I do see that Mr. Elson has addressed that in part.
@bigpics
Ok wtf should he disclose then anyway? Do you want daily announcements by his physicians? Weekly? Bi-weekly? Do you want blood exams, urine exams, mris? Do you want them mailed to you or posted online?
And do you maybe want to have your doctors examine him too? Which doctors opinion on SJ's would you consider reliable?
This whole discussion is ridiculous and nonsensical. A medical leave of absence is just that. End of story. We know about Steve's cancer in the past, an his liver transplant, the rest is for his family, close friends and doctors to know.
I know I'm not gonna get anywhere with you, but 1) it's not for HIM to disclose, it's for Apple, Inc., again, a publicly held corporation with millions of people having more or less of their prosperity depending on how Apple does, to keep us apprised of what THEY as an organization know about the overall state of their leadership team.
Again, as Dr. Milmoss points out you and others are simply making up what the real issue is here which is not second-by-second access to every medical detail of the man's life. In debate terms, you're dragging a "red herring" across the stage to distract from the real issue or building a "straw man" which you can knock down and look like you've made a point.
2) That the rest of the team is intact and doing fine is good news, but everyone in the world knows who's responsible for bringing Apple Computer from the brink of irrelevance to the hottest business organization in the world. Thus no one expects a press release that a junior engineer in the iPad division is out on maternity leave or that another employee at that level has been fired or hired.
But no other major company in the world is so currently tied to the actions and ideas of a single person as Apple is to Steve Jobs.
3) And if Apple actually knows nothing more that what it released, which seems absurd on its face, but if that's the case, then people who are a) owners, b) suppliers/dealers/partners and c) customers need to know that as well so we can make our own decisions about our a) Apple stock, b) contracts and c) product-buying plans accordingly.
4) This of course doesn't imply breathless daily press releases of every detail of his condition - which is confidential unless released by the patient or those personally acting on a patient's behalf when they cannot do so, but it does include Apple's (not Steve's) understanding of what the statement that Jobs "will be involved in "major strategic decisions" means (and how capable he is of fulfilling that role) and some estimate of when their CEO might be back and their confidence level that he will.
5) And this is not just my opinion in any way. As noted elsewhere there are SEC regulations and likely other legal or policy matters which apply here. I'm certain there's a whole body of developing precedent.
6) There will be a post Steve Jobs period to Apple's life as an organization. His successor will not be his clone (and e.g., just for one fact, will not be largest shareholder and a board member at Walt Disney, which has guaranteed strong Hollywood support for the company). The post SPJ exec. will constantly be facing new challenges as they arise from competitors, co-opetitioners, suppliers and within - and will be changing or seeking to change the team and strategic directions - in an atmosphere where that new exec. will be far more closely scrutinized than nearly any other, given the shoes he or she will be filling.
One posted link to a news article?
More, with actual links to the articles cited.
?The company has a responsibility to let public shareholders know that the organizational structure will be sound if Steve Jobs has to leave for any reason,? said Apple investor Ryan Jacob, head of the Jacob Internet Fund. Apple is the fund?s third-largest holding, accounting for 5.9 percent of its investments as of Dec. 31. The amount of disclosure about what?s going on has been ?poor at best,? he said.
?In the investor?s mind, Steve Jobs is the linchpin to this company?s future and there are unanswered questions,? said Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware?s John Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. ?His health is not an isolated issue. Unfortunately, it directly relates to investors? confidence in this business and there has not been enough transparency from the board.?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...fer=technology
"From a legal standpoint, Apple doesn't have to disclose a thing. But from a transparency standpoint, they should disclose," said Delaware's Elson, from the University of Delaware. Even though Jobs' health may be his personal business, he represents so much of the Apple brand that investors deserve to be updated, Elson said.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html
?We don?t know much,? said Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. ?We know he is back at work and that he had a transplant. Given how important he seems to be to the value of this business, we ought to have the facts in front us that the board had in bringing him back.? During his absence, Apple said little about Mr. Jobs other than repeating that he would be back at the end of June. Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, said Apple?s insistence on secrecy damaged the company?s credibility.
?At every stage, the rumor mill was more informative and accurate than the company?s external communications,? Mr. Sonnenfeld said. ?The fact that they?ve gotten away with it sets a very low bar.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/te...s/30apple.html
My heart dropped when I heard this. I think this may very well be Steve's last act. He gave it all he could, and he gave the world remarkable technologies to make our lives more enjoyable and fulfilling. I just can't help but come to terms that Steve's last days may be upon us. This leave may be his final pilgrimage to fulfill life's last desires. I hope that he finds peace in this frightening time and know that he is loved more than feared. Since 1992 I have been a die hard Apple nut, and Steve saved my favorite company. I hope he leaves behind a blueprint for Apple to follow for the next 50 years. Find peace, Steve!
This may happen as you say, but more likely, we will see steves in and out of his company in the next couple of years. As much as I would like steve to continue at full power as soon as possible, as much I wish for him to have a long life ahead. Both ideas are in his situation incompatible. But he pulled the wagon out of the deep swamp and that almost single handedly back at the end of the ninties. Now he has gathered a extraordinary capable crew around himself, so that I beliefe he can really relax during his leave. This situation actually may really help him, since being able to let go releaves from stress, and reduced stress improves the overall prognosis of almost any kind of desease but particularly from cancer, if he truly is still suffering from his pancreatic cancer.
Get well soon steve!
Needed at Apple
Apple needs to delegate Steve Jobs?s power more formally to someone else. Mr. Jobs, Apple?s chief executive, is handing day-to-day control to the company?s chief operating officer, Tim Cook, because of health issues. Yet he retains his chief executive title. This is the third such move, and this time the handover is indefinite. However painful, a more formal transfer to an acting chief executive would have been better.
Both Apple and its shareholders can take comfort in the fact that the last two transfers, also to Mr. Cook, took place smoothly. Apple?s operations showed no signs whatsoever of impairment under caretaker management.
Mr. Cook has worked at Apple for more than a decade and has been chief operating officer for several years. He?s clearly a safe pair of hands and more ? in total, he was paid $59 million last year. Moreover, Mr. Jobs has promised to retain control over big strategic choices.
But Mr. Jobs?s fitness is, sadly, an increasing concern. The company hasn?t said exactly what the current matter is, but this latest setback follows previous treatment for pancreatic cancer and an organ transplant. Furthermore, the open-ended nature of Mr. Jobs?s current respite will add to the worry for employees and investors alike.
In these circumstances, Apple would have been better served by explicitly naming Mr. Cook acting chief. That would leave Mr. Jobs as chairman, where he could retain say over the Apple?s strategic direction without the grueling daily chores of running the company.
That is where he is most valuable anyhow. Such a division would provide clarity and give Mr. Cook a proper mandate, given the responsibility of overseeing a company with a $300 billion market capitalization.
Mr. Jobs plays an outsize role at Apple. He is arguably the best executive in technology. But his reputation also depends on keeping the company on the soundest footing possible, even if that means formally loosening his grip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18views.html
In these circumstances, Apple would have been better served by explicitly naming Mr. Cook acting chief. That would leave Mr. Jobs as chairman, where he could retain say over the Apple?s strategic direction without the grueling daily chores of running the company.
I expect this to announced about 6 months after his return from this LOA. When you add in the rumors that Apple is searching for a CFO (even though Oppenheimer says he is happy at Apple), I think you can see that there is an effort to adjust the management team. It appears that Oppenheimer will be slotted into the COO spot upon Cook's elevation to CEO. I have some concerns about moving a finance guy into running operations but I am sure they feel he will be the best "cultural" fit. Steve will assume the role of a very active board chairman - working out the big strategic moves and keeping careful watch that the "Apple DNA" continues to inform future product decisions.
From my perspective, Apple has been laying the groundwork for this transition for the past two years. Steve has included more presenters at Apple events not only to help them improve their presentation abilities but also for the media and others to get used to announcements coming from someone other than Jobs. Press releases that once quoted only Jobs now frequently include quotes from Cook or other senior staff.